ise_dc_query

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does well: declares read-only, discloses that SQL comments are rejected, and states the FROM/JOIN target constraint. However, it doesn't disclose behavior for invalid SQL (error format), row-limit enforcement, or performance characteristics beyond the row-limiting advice, though the constraint warnings add meaningful context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences, zero filler. Every sentence conveys a distinct operational constraint: purpose, target/view restrictions, and row-limiting requirement. Front-loaded with the primary purpose statement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a raw query tool with 100% schema coverage, 2 params, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, valid targets, and deployment selection. The sibling context of ise_dc_list_views/ise_dc_describe further reduces the need to enumerate all views inline. Complete for its complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the `deployment` param semantics beyond the schema (name/slug/number formats) and cross-references ise_list_deployments. For the `sql` param, the description reinforces the single-SELECT and row-limit constraints, adding operational meaning to the example schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Run a custom read-only SELECT against Data Connect (advanced)'. It establishes this as a raw/advanced query tool distinct from the many specialized ise_dc_view_* siblings, which provide pre-built canned views of the same underlying data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Excellent guidance: states restrictions explicitly (single SELECT only, SQL comments rejected, every FROM/JOIN must be a Data Connect catalog view), advises row limiting (FETCH FIRST n ROWS ONLY), and cross-references ise_dc_list_views for valid targets. It also distinguishes it implicitly as the 'advanced' raw option alongside the structured view tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.